Posted - 02/22/2013 : 09:43:57 This happened the other night. Vladimir Tarasenko plays the puck, then turns up ice when Mark Olver arrives, having already commited to hitting him, and creams him, making some contact to the head. Tarasenko is "out of it" and some say was "out" before he hit the ice. The following is a really good article, complete with slo mo replay and some very good points made, especially the very last sentence in the article!!!

FTR, there was no discipline for this hit, nor was there a penalty on the play. Opinions?

Posted - 02/27/2013 : 07:51:30 7561....FYI, i've played the game. However, i will admit, not at the NHL level. Have you? I ask because every league is different and i know the men's / beer leagues around here don't follow these same rules and "criteria" that you point out. Just curious how your experiences in playing hockey are met with the same rules as the NHL. Are you an NHLer?

It was me who mentioned, not "cried" about, the 2 seconds. While it's difficult to tell exactly when Tarasenko plays the puck, 2 seconds might be a little much i admit. Regardless, from other examples i've seen, this was late. Just ask Aaron Rome. When i say late, i'm going by what precedent's have been set. I don't necessarily agree with it and if you were around back in 2011 when Rome was suspended, or much since then, you'd have read a lot of my arguments about giving some leeway to guys who've already commited to a hit. I won't bother repeating it all.

As for "targeting", what has that got to do with the fact he hit him in the head. I don't think for a second that he "targeted" the head, but the NHL is trying their damnest to get headshots out of the game and usually doesn't care if it was intended or not. Not every headshot is as blatantly obvious as others, but look at the example the NFL is setting and maybe you'd understand the NHL's plans.

Lastly, your third criteria of an injury couldn't be more wrong. A player doesn't have to be injured for there to be a suspension. Sure, the suspension could be longer, stiffer, etc for a more serious injury, but don't try to tell me that if a guy isnt' injured that you'll never see a suspension!

fat_elvis_rocked

Posted - 02/26/2013 : 23:45:20 Finally! I'd thought we lost all those condescenders who start all their holier than thou rhetoric with those ever intelligent words of experience and wisdom.

Give it a rest, most of us have played at various levels, so start your reasoning with something a little less combative if you wouldn't mind.

There was no penalty remember? Apparently you are only agreeing with what the referees saw, and not blessing us with your vast superior knowledge of the game.....yeesh!

I still think he was being reckless, as had Tarasenko not turned towards him, he had him lined up from behind, and the 'crushing hit', could have been even worse had he driven Tarasenko in to the boards head first.

Indicative of today's game, less respect for your opponent than looking for the big hit.

Guest7561

Posted - 02/26/2013 : 22:20:18 Have any of you that have posted on this topic ever played the game?

I did and still do.

This was a crushing hit, but legal.

3 criteria need to be met

1 - late

It was not, despite the cry of one poster that it was ' 2 seconds ' after he moved the puck. 2 seconds on the ice is the time it takes the average icing. this was less than 1/2 second

2 - targeting

There was no movement by Olver to do anything remotely close to changing his path to make contact with Tarasenko. The fact that he got hit in the chin was as unhappy an accident as the skate that took out Karlson

3 - injury

Well, yup, that he was.

BTW, am a fan of hockey and neither team. I am sad that both of these fabulous young stars are not playing right now

Guest4377

Posted - 02/23/2013 : 11:17:51 Not a big deal, but after watching the replay a few times, I was surprised by the lack of fan reaction as Tarasenko got up on his feet after the hit. No clapping (from what I could see) or no other kind of applause or encouagement as this very hurt player wobbled off the ice.

I've watched a number of games in person at the Pepsi Centre, and from my observations, the fans (overall) are polite and friendly, even to visiting fans cheering for the opposing team. (Unlike some rinks, and in varying extents of course.)

So I was a bit surprised to see a lack of cheering when the fallen Tarasenko got up, but maybe that's the way it is (in Denver, and other rinks), and I haven't been paying full attention?

In the rink where I watch most games (leaving shortly for an afternoon game between the Coyotes and Oilers), I'm used to seeing fans cheer when a hurt (especially very hurt) player from either side gets up after being down on the ice for a spell. I like to believe most fans (and most rinks) do the same, but the Avalanche fans did not (at least this time), which surprised me, especially from how well this visiting fan has been treated when seeing a game there.

But maybe if I were wearing a visiting team's jersey, and slipped on the stairs, I would find out differently? No help getting up, and no "are you okay" perhaps? :)

Alex116

Posted - 02/22/2013 : 20:33:47 Lighten up Slozo! Everyone is entitled to a day off. I read that Shanahan was taking a day off to go drinking and golfing with some college buddies so he got Colin Campbell to cover for him on this one. Makes sense, no?

If Hall gets 2 games for a reckless hit that was close to being legal and almost became a bad knee on knee . . .

. . . how can this non-hockey play that was clearly targetting, and which ended in a knockout via elbow to the head on a player vulnerable to the boards and taken by surprise from his blind spot . . . get . . . NOTHIING?!?

Seriously?

If Hall gets 2 for a reckless hockey play . . . what should this idiot get for a dangerous, potential career-ending non-hockey head hit? 15 games? 20?

Just when I think Shanahan is doing a great job, he throws it all away in a decision like this. All credibility lost IMHO.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Beans15

Posted - 02/22/2013 : 16:36:56 Blind side and contact to the head. Isn't that the exact definition of what the NHL wants to remove from the league?

I'm pretty surprised nothing happened from this hit.

Alex116

Posted - 02/22/2013 : 14:18:06 I'm starting to see the side of those opposed to "finishing your check". This is exactly the way these plays can turn out. I agree that Olver wasn't coming in too fast, nor do i think it necessarily would be a hit from behind, though it was questionable, but a very slight bump and body position in Tarasenko's way would be enough to impede him (as long as interference wasn't called). In looking at the slo mo replay, it looks to me to be almost 2 full seconds after Tarasenko played the puck that the hit was delivered, and that's SLO MO!!! The hit would have been 100% fine if no head contact, but being that late, you have to consider it reckless!

nuxfan

Posted - 02/22/2013 : 13:39:25

quote:Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked

No need to 'finish the check', when a player is in this position, ever, IMO.

I guess it depends on what you mean when you say "finish the check". Olver was not coming in very hard, I don't think he was intending to bury Tarasenko into the boards or anything. It just looked like it would be normal body contact, a check to the shoulder to prevent Tarasenko from moving out too quickly and to try and move him off the puck.

That sort of hit, back turned or not, is normal hockey hitting and should be fine. The only reason this hit got ugly was because Tarasenko turned around at exactly the wrong time.

fat_elvis_rocked

Posted - 02/22/2013 : 11:23:37 I am very surprised there was no penalty on the play and although the hit ended up being a shoulder to the jaw, I am wondering what Oliver was intending, other than a hit from behind, in that ever dangerous 3-4 foot zone from the boards.

It is easy to see that he was committed to the check, and that harkens back to my question above.

A dangerous play, and quite possibly a lesser outcome than what could have happened. I hope it gets reviewed and if for nothing else there is discipline for moreso, the vulnerable position Tarasenko was in overall, than what transpired.

No need to 'finish the check', when a player is in this position, ever, IMO.

Alex116

Posted - 02/22/2013 : 10:12:24

quote:Originally posted by nuxfan

I think there should have been a penalty on the play - it was a clear hit to the jaw of Tarasekno, and thats a minor penalty, accident or not. Tarasenko was out of it for sure.

But the hit to the head was clearly accidental - Olver was lining up to hit him in the back/shoulder, and Tarasenko turned back into the play at the last moment, and it becomes a shot to the jaw. Olver was committed to the hit, no way he can stop when Tarasenko turns.

That's the problem i have with an NFL type rule where ANY head shot is punished. Olver didn't leave his feet, wasn't going all that fast and commited to a hit that would have been legal had Tarasenko not turned and had his head down! Also, we often see these hits where the principal point of contact is the body, but the momentum sometimes means there's contact with the head. You almost have to take body checking out of the game to ensure ZERO headshots.

nuxfan

Posted - 02/22/2013 : 09:54:34 I think there should have been a penalty on the play - it was a clear hit to the jaw of Tarasekno, and thats a minor penalty, accident or not. Tarasenko was out of it for sure.

But the hit to the head was clearly accidental - Olver was lining up to hit him in the back/shoulder, and Tarasenko turned back into the play at the last moment, and it becomes a shot to the jaw. Olver was committed to the hit, no way he can stop when Tarasenko turns.